With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India. It might not be specifically racism as it might be global economics. He also doesn't have to take the offer.

There are other benefits as well, having an h1 visa means that, once physically here, his (very highly in demand) skillset can get other silicon valley companies competing for him, at which point oracle would have to reconsider his salary.

The whole point of outsourcing was to take advantage of that purchasing power parity differential.

With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India. It might not be specifically racism as it might be global economics. He also doesn't have to take the offer.

There are other benefits as well, having an h1 visa means that, once physically here, his (very highly in demand) skillset can get other silicon valley companies competing for him, at which point oracle would have to reconsider his salary.

The whole point of outsourcing was to take advantage of that purchasing power parity differential.

Yeah, except he will then be moved to California where all expenses rise and where 50K may be rich (or not don't know) in India, it is decidedly lower middle class here and will probably lower his standard of living (ex. smaller apartment, lower quality food, etc.).

With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India. It might not be specifically racism as it might be global economics. He also doesn't have to take the offer.

There are other benefits as well, having an h1 visa means that, once physically here, his (very highly in demand) skillset can get other silicon valley companies competing for him, at which point oracle would have to reconsider his salary.

The whole point of outsourcing was to take advantage of that purchasing power parity differential.

Presumably the Indian guy couldn't do the job on offer from India, otherwise they wouldn't have invited him to the states.

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

Employers are required to pay foreigners working in the US under work visas the prevailing wage. Typically the argument is not that those on work visas make less, but that they lower the prevailing wage (simple supply and demand).

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

"You don't have to take the job if you don't like the salary" is not a defense against employment discrimination laws as they apply to women, or to racial and religious minorities. In addition, it is generally illegal to pay foreign workers on visas below the prevailing wage. H1B visas in particular are supposed to supply workers in fields suffering from a shortage of appropriately qualified Americans. It is not supposed to be used to import foreign workers at low wages to avoid hiring qualified Americans at higher salaries.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure firing a whistleblower for pointing out potentially illegal practices is also illegal.

So if the allegations hold up, it sounds like oracle is on the wrong side of several laws.

He forgets that bringing him to California represents costs to Oracle as well. Big omission. Nobody forces anyone to take a job, if you are not happy with the pay quit and go somewhere else where they will pay you what you think you deserve.

With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India.

Yes, but during his employment in the new position he wouldn't be living in India, he'd be in America where the cost of living is significantly higher.

Even worse, California; which is one of the most expensive states to live in.

None of the articles about the termination mention how much Spandow was arguing to pay but I am guessing the difference was pretty large if it was worth an argument with his manager. I doubt it was only $10k as people are suggesting.

With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India.

Yes, but during his employment in the new position he wouldn't be living in India, he'd be in America where the cost of living is significantly higher.

Which is bad? Some people would prefer a lower income and living in California vs a huge income and living somewhere else. I assume some Indian workers prefer so, and others value more to be close to home, so it depends on the worker. This is always a factor with foreigns workers, not just money.

A job is not all about money but also extra benefits. And living in California may or not be a benefit.

I could argue the same point that Oracle would pay more taxes for him in California than in India. So the same is true if you look it from the company perspective since i´m sure the Oracle India works under Indian regulations and taxes.

My point is that if you don´t like it, you don´t take it. Simple. Nobody is forcing anyone.

You all claim that he will have more expenses in the US, but then decide to completely deny the fact that nobody is forcing anyone to take a job. You make it sounds like living in California is a nightmare for him, I assume most would love to have a job offer in California in the first place.

You also neglect on purpose that this also represents more costs to Oracle as he now works under Oracle USA and US benefits, taxes, etc which are more expensive than Oracle India, so it also costs Oracle more having him working in the US than in India.

It seems people just want to blame the huge corporations of all evil always before looking themselves in the mirror. A company wants to save money just like you do as well.

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

"You don't have to take the job if you don't like the salary" is not a defense against employment discrimination laws as they apply to women, or to racial and religious minorities. In addition, it is generally illegal to pay foreign workers on visas below the prevailing wage. H1B visas in particular are supposed to supply workers in fields suffering from a shortage of appropriately qualified Americans. It is not supposed to be used to import foreign workers at low wages to avoid hiring qualified Americans at higher salaries.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure firing a whistleblower for pointing out potentially illegal practices is also illegal.

So if the allegations hold up, it sounds like oracle is on the wrong side of several laws.

How exactly is bringing someone to California which was rated as one of the best places in the world for living, with US benefits, security, health care, etc discrimination? Are you on drugs? If he was not happy with the proposition he would not take it. Simple.

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

"You don't have to take the job if you don't like the salary" is not a defense against employment discrimination laws as they apply to women, or to racial and religious minorities. In addition, it is generally illegal to pay foreign workers on visas below the prevailing wage. H1B visas in particular are supposed to supply workers in fields suffering from a shortage of appropriately qualified Americans. It is not supposed to be used to import foreign workers at low wages to avoid hiring qualified Americans at higher salaries.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure firing a whistleblower for pointing out potentially illegal practices is also illegal.

So if the allegations hold up, it sounds like oracle is on the wrong side of several laws.

How exactly is bringing someone to California which was rated as one of the best places in the world for living, with US benefits, security, health care, etc discrimination? Are you on drugs? If he was not happy with the proposition he would not take it. Simple.

Mhm. There's nothing in the article about the Indian guy though. Just his (US based) manager.

You all claim that he will have more expenses in the US, but then decide to completely deny the fact that nobody is forcing anyone to take a job. You make it sounds like living in California is a nightmare for him, I assume most would love to have a job offer in California in the first place.

You also neglect on purpose that this also represents more costs to Oracle as he now works under Oracle USA and US benefits, taxes, etc which are more expensive than Oracle India, so it also costs Oracle more having him working in the US than in India.

It seems people just want to blame the huge corporations of all evil always before looking themselves in the mirror. A company wants to save money just like you do as well.

A company just wants to save money, so they should just all pay everyone $.05/hr and force us to live in huts so they can save money.

Now, if the gentleman were English, French, German... would you say the same thing? I'm sure you would, and bring in talent from a far away locale is always a consideration. The problem is you are making assumptions. The alleged statement that is key here is someone saying “good money for an Indian.” If that person had said "good money for someone who has to move from another country" then there is no discriminatory practices.

All your posturing are excuses. In cases of discrimination, intention has very little to do with the actual "crime." Either you did it/said it or you did not. "I didn't mean to insult the dirty filthy honkey." But you did.

Capitalism is about giving the best person the shot, not about propping up the white male upper class with excuses.

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

"You don't have to take the job if you don't like the salary" is not a defense against employment discrimination laws as they apply to women, or to racial and religious minorities. In addition, it is generally illegal to pay foreign workers on visas below the prevailing wage. H1B visas in particular are supposed to supply workers in fields suffering from a shortage of appropriately qualified Americans. It is not supposed to be used to import foreign workers at low wages to avoid hiring qualified Americans at higher salaries.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure firing a whistleblower for pointing out potentially illegal practices is also illegal.

So if the allegations hold up, it sounds like oracle is on the wrong side of several laws.

How exactly is bringing someone to California which was rated as one of the best places in the world for living, with US benefits, security, health care, etc discrimination? Are you on drugs? If he was not happy with the proposition he would not take it. Simple.

Are you on drugs, what list do you see California on the list of best places to live? What criteria are you using to determine this?

Also, going off the article, from the sounds of it they never even offered the guy the job to work in the US. The manager said I want to offer him this much, they said no, he said that's BS and they fired him. So all your "you don't like the job..." BS is just that. It has nothing to do with this article.

And, the Indian guy didn't have to take the job if he didn't like the money, but did Oracle have to fire the Irish guy for questioning it?

"You don't have to take the job if you don't like the salary" is not a defense against employment discrimination laws as they apply to women, or to racial and religious minorities. In addition, it is generally illegal to pay foreign workers on visas below the prevailing wage. H1B visas in particular are supposed to supply workers in fields suffering from a shortage of appropriately qualified Americans. It is not supposed to be used to import foreign workers at low wages to avoid hiring qualified Americans at higher salaries.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure firing a whistleblower for pointing out potentially illegal practices is also illegal.

So if the allegations hold up, it sounds like oracle is on the wrong side of several laws.

How exactly is bringing someone to California which was rated as one of the best places in the world for living, with US benefits, security, health care, etc discrimination? Are you on drugs? If he was not happy with the proposition he would not take it. Simple.

But he wasn't saying that bringing someone to California is discrimination. He's saying that the defense of "if they don't offer to pay you a fair wage/salary, don't take the offer" is irrelevant, because it applies to many groups that have historically been discriminated against (and still commonly are).

Look at it this way: What are you supposed to do if every company offered you the same shitty pay?

The manager was right in complaining about the directive he was given.

With purchasing power parity to be considered, it actually is quite good money in India.

Yes, but during his employment in the new position he wouldn't be living in India, he'd be in America where the cost of living is significantly higher.

Which is bad? Some people would prefer a lower income and living in California vs a huge income and living somewhere else. I assume some Indian workers prefer so, and others value more to be close to home, so it depends on the worker. This is always a factor with foreigns workers, not just money.

A job is not all about money but also extra benefits. And living in California may or not be a benefit.

I could argue the same point that Oracle would pay more taxes for him in California than in India. So the same is true if you look it from the company perspective since i´m sure the Oracle India works under Indian regulations and taxes.

My point is that if you don´t like it, you don´t take it. Simple. Nobody is forcing anyone.

Forced? No. Manipulated to the point that their decision making process is no longer entirely their own? Most certainly. Sufficient money is coercive, as much as a gun to the head. The less money you have, the less money it takes to coerce you. Oracle knows that, which is why they fired the guy who tried to stand in the way of their illicit coercion.

Free will sounds great and all but we've got to deal with actual reality here. In reality, people of reduced means do not have the freedom to choose from the full range of options you imagine they have due to desperation and pressure. Anyone who uses that desperation to their advantage is behaving in a heinous and, in this case, illegal manner, regardless of how many "other people are doing it."

1. $50-60K in CA is almost unlivable, especially considering that Oracle offices tend to be in expensive areas like SF or Palo Alto, and that CA has high taxes on top of high costs of living.

2. It is not legal, period, for a company to offer largely varying wages to people doing the same job based solely on race or country of origin. I cannot believe some of you think that this is OK or that the right response is "just dont take the job".

3. It is also not legal for a company to fire someone for pointing out illegal practices. Now there may have been plenty of other reasons this guy was fired, and Sales people "turn over" frequently, but if he was fired solely for bringing up this issue, he's got a good case.

Employers are required to pay foreigners working in the US under work visas the prevailing wage. Typically the argument is not that those on work visas make less, but that they lower the prevailing wage (simple supply and demand).

Exactly. The companies' arguement about hiring foreign workers over stateside workers, is that the stateside workers don't have the skills, and nothing to do with money.

Why shouldn't they pay this guy what someone stateside qualified for the job would make? Are these companies lying?

You all claim that he will have more expenses in the US, but then decide to completely deny the fact that nobody is forcing anyone to take a job. You make it sounds like living in California is a nightmare for him, I assume most would love to have a job offer in California in the first place.

You also neglect on purpose that this also represents more costs to Oracle as he now works under Oracle USA and US benefits, taxes, etc which are more expensive than Oracle India, so it also costs Oracle more having him working in the US than in India.

It seems people just want to blame the huge corporations of all evil always before looking themselves in the mirror. A company wants to save money just like you do as well.

A company just wants to save money, so they should just all pay everyone $.05/hr and force us to live in huts so they can save money.

Now, if the gentleman were English, French, German... would you say the same thing? I'm sure you would, and bring in talent from a far away locale is always a consideration. The problem is you are making assumptions. The alleged statement that is key here is someone saying “good money for an Indian.” If that person had said "good money for someone who has to move from another country" then there is no discriminatory practices.

All your posturing are excuses. In cases of discrimination, intention has very little to do with the actual "crime." Either you did it/said it or you did not. "I didn't mean to insult the dirty filthy honkey." But you did.

Capitalism is about giving the best person the shot, not about propping up the white male upper class with excuses.

Oracle should be able to pay all their employees a fair wage with all the ask.com toolbar money the must be getting to include that damn thing in the java installer. Also all you people saying the guy didn't have to take the job that would only be valid if that was the going rate for all of oracles employs in a similar position. What they are doing both immoral and illegal and they deserve to be called out for it.

On a totally unrelated note, why is it that suddenly posts that are modded down below a certain threshold are now totally hidden, rather than partially hidden but still readable if you click on it like they were a few hours ago?

I accept, & I'm mindful of practicing the principle whereby discrete events should be apprised within the context of their individual circumstances. That said, this is Larry Ellison's Oracle we're talking about here folks. Safe to say there is more than the random bit of anecdotal evidence to suggest the prevailing ethical model in play is not one in service of, say, enabling transcendence to heightened states of moral enlightenment.

On a totally unrelated note, why is it that suddenly posts that are modded down below a certain threshold are now totally hidden, rather than partially hidden but still readable if you click on it like they were a few hours ago?

Indeed. Why even bother with the vote totals if the post is going to be inaccessible?

I know I am on the wrong side of this, and I believe Oracle may be on the wrong side of the legal issue. But, giving politicians power over the hiring rules also is fraught with peril. We are down this road where much of the politicians will is to make everything "fair" and take away the business owner decisions, but what if the shoe goes the other way. How would you feel if the government rules say once you agree to work at a company you cannot leave, or like Nixon, they make new laws that the employer is not allow to raise wages. The safest mechanism will be to have individuals agree to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement, I agree to do work for a company for X compensation if I change my mind for any reason I can go. If the company changes their mind they and leave. We both then have incentives to keep the other happy. This falls apart for the employee when they don't develop skills and relationships that keep them in a bargaining position, but expect the company to never have changing needs.

I would be very upset if I was the Indian in this case and lost the opportunity to make this decision on my future to work for a lower wage now, and have the opportunity to show my commitment to the company and impress them with my value for future negotiations. I have taken roles that I consider interim where I accept a smaller compensation to do work that I like, that I want to build skills or put me in front of people I know I can impress. To have that decision taken from me because some manager was offended for me is demeaning to me to make a decision for myself, like I am to stupid to understand the value I bring to a situation.

The safest mechanism will be to have individuals agree to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement, I agree to do work for a company for X compensation if I change my mind for any reason I can go. If the company changes their mind they and leave. We both then have incentives to keep the other happy. This falls apart for the employee when they don't develop skills and relationships that keep them in a bargaining position, but expect the company to never have changing needs.

The bit you're missing is that for your mutually beneficial approach to work, there has to be an equivalence of power. This simply doesn't happen in the real world.Absent regulation, companies instinctively form cartels to manage the cost of labor. It's a natural reaction and in their best interest to do so. Counter-intuitively this happens the most with scarce skills. This is because the risk to a company of _not_ having a cartel or no-poaching agreement is a possibly unbounded cost for the scarce skills. This provides overwhelming incentive for them to find a way of mitigating the risk.

I know I am on the wrong side of this, and I believe Oracle may be on the wrong side of the legal issue. But, giving politicians power over the hiring rules also is fraught with peril.

Good thing that this is in no way about whom they can hire, but only that they have to pay employees in similar positions similar wages. Only a problem if you really think that businesses can only be successful by discriminating against certain races, genders, or <insert anything you want here>.

Absent regulation, companies instinctively form cartels to manage the cost of labor. It's a natural reaction and in their best interest to do so. Counter-intuitively this happens the most with scarce skills. This is because the risk to a company of _not_ having a cartel or no-poaching agreement is a possibly unbounded cost for the scarce skills. This provides overwhelming incentive for them to find a way of mitigating the risk.

This has already happened in the US, also in Russia as well.

"As a group, the plaintiffs are accusing Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel and others of an "overarching conspiracy" to keep employee pay down through anti-poaching agreements."